ARTICLE SYNOPSIS:
Ron Dzwonkowski of the Detroit Free Press writes that Ron Paul 'is among
what critics consider 'vanity candidates' or limited-issue folks who clog
up the early going in every presidential race."
Follow this link to the original source: "No
chance to win"

COMMENTARY:
One critic whom Mr. Dzwonkowski is particularly fond of citing is Dr.
Michael Coulter of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College.
Dr. Coulter suggested in a recent essay that U.S. House members should
be banned from running for president. One wonders whether Dr. Coulter
has read the U.S. Constitution.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution stipulates just two requirements
for eligibility to hold the office of President. The first is that the
candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States. The second
is that the candidate must be at least 35 years of age.

Dr. Coulter claims that James Garfield was the only House member ever
to be elected President. Coulter conveniently fails to note that Abraham
Lincoln, often considered to be our greatest president, was neither a
governor nor a senator. But he was a member of the House of Representatives!

Furthermore, it is worth noting that the order of presidential succession
places the Speaker of the House immediately after the Vice President.
That makes Dr. Coulter’s suggestion that House members be banned
from running for president look absolutely ludicrous.

(Article continues below)

Dzwonkowski writes, "Coulter puts Paul in the 'less than no chance'
category for winning the White House, which is accurate." Apparently,
Coulter and Dzwonkowski have not checked out Gambling911.com, which reports
on Internet betting relating to presidential candidates.

Shortly after midnight on May 22, 2007, Gambling911.com reported that
Ron Paul was listed on Sportsbook.com with 200 to 1 odds of winning the
2008 U.S. presidential race. Nine hours later, it reported that the odds
had been cut by half, to 100 to 1. Eight days later, the odds had been
slashed to 15 to 1.

On August 7, Gambling911.com reported that Ron Paul’s odds had
been cut to 8 to 1, putting him in a tie with Mitt Romney. By October
1, Paul’s odds were down to 6 to 1, ahead of Romney, and just behind
John McCain (5 to 1) and Rudy Giuliani (5 to 1). Fred Thompson is the
favorite among Republicans with odds of 4 to 1.

That may strike those following the political scene as unbelievable,
since mainstream media polls put Ron Paul way behind. Here’s what
Gambling911.com has to say about that:

Forget those political polls. Throughout time (at least the last decade),
oddsmakers have had an uncanny knack for predicting political races.
It's not so much that they have a crystal ball, rather the lines adjust
based on public action. When it comes to political betting, the public
action is presumed to represent votes. The theory being that someone
who is likely to vote on Mitt Romney probably won't bet on Ron Paul
winning.

The gambling public seems to believe that 2008 Presidential candidate
Ron Paul stands a very good chance of winning.

Coulter and Dzwonkowski also appear to be unaware of Ron Paul’s
domination of the Internet. Dr. Paul’s superstar status in cyberspace
was recently described in an article published by The New American magazine,
which can be viewed here.

And this week it was reported that the Ron Paul campaign raised more
that $5 million during the third quarter, a 114 percent increase over
the second quarter. That increase is in stark contrast to the decrease
suffered by Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain. Romney’s
fundraising was down 29 percent. Giuliani was down 40 percent. McCain
was down 55 percent.

No chance to win? That’s what they said about Jimmy Carter and
Bill Clinton, in the early stages of their campaigns. The story that the
mainstream media is missing is that Ron Paul is looking more like a first-tier
candidate with each passing day.

The continual drumbeat in the media that Paul is not a serious contender,
though, says more about the media than it says about Ron Paul. Paul espouses
a constitutionalist message and is finding that voters are responding.
That message contradicts with the soft-socialist predilections of the
mainstream media. Hence, most media organs will go to any length in their
attempts to discredit that message. In due time, however, the propagandists
in the mainstream media may find, to their chagrin, that they have lost
the ear, and the respect, of the American people.